Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·Clearwire
·AT&T Wireless Br..
 ·Comcast
·AT&T DSL Service
·RCN CABLE
1 edit | My acquaintance in Poland always downloads pirate movies including the ones recently released in the cinema. He said he never pays for movies, never goes to a movie theater or rents blue-ray or dvd discs. He downloads all movies directly through bittorrent.
My neighbor used to make money off making copies on movies, programs, video games on cd-r for like 10 or 20 bucks each copy.
Due to such high piracy, there are no services there like iTunes, Xbox Live (local) or Zune |
|
|
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | Said by "collegeboy"
"Due to such high piracy, there are no services there like iTunes, Xbox Live (local) or Zune"
lol, good one |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to chgo_man99
said by chgo_man99:Due to such high piracy, there are no services there like iTunes, Xbox Live (local) or Zune There was "piracy" (your word) here too, yet those services thrive and effectively reduced it. That's the solution: availability at reasonable prices. Most people are willing to pay.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
 danawhitakerSpace...The Final FrontierPremium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA | reply to chgo_man99
And I have friends who live overseas who are forced to use those methods in order to get TV shows and movies at the same speed as other parts of the world get them. One of the big reasons a lot of people in other parts of the world pirate things is that they aren't released there until months or sometimes years later. One of my favorite shows is Castle, and I know some people who live in areas where season two either hasn't even started yet or has just started when season three is about to begin airing in the U.S. Those people are stuck between a rock and a hard place, because they want to follow the fandom online, but if they do so, they're spoiled constantly by people talking about stuff that aired almost a year ago. Even Canada will be off sometimes by a few days or weeks, depending on the schedule. And sometimes Canada gets airings ahead of the U.S. Maybe the entertainment industry should start treating its fans with respect and release things in a timely fashion worldwide. I suppose that some of that could be the fault of individual countries being unwilling to air things, but I'd be surprised if some of it didn't come from the entertainment industry itself just wanting to stagger releases to try and milk more money. Unfortunately, that doesn't work when people from all over the world talk together online and want to be able to watch the stuff at the same time.
One thing this industry seems to fail to get: If someone wasn't going to pay to go see it anyway, they wouldn't have gotten money from them in the first place. Until they get that, we're never going to be able to have any serious and legitimate discourse on this issue.
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around... |
|
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Clearwire
·AT&T Wireless Br..
·Comcast
·AT&T DSL Service
·RCN CABLE
| reply to funchords
quote:
There was "piracy" (your word) here too, yet those services thrive and effectively reduced it. That's the solution: availability at reasonable prices. Most people are willing to pay.
I doubt it will change soon no matter what price they offer. They can't run it at too low price (like $0.10 per movie). lol
How many people there can really afford to pay for an entertainment on regular basis? Not many!
Average person there makes only 1300 PLN per month. Perhaps people in Warsaw or Krakow make a lot more but how many are there in those cities combined vs 48 million the whole country? |
|
BlueC
join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN Reviews:
·Integra Telecom
 ·voip.ms
·T-Mobile US
| reply to funchords
Very true. There are a number of people already paying to download content for free. Newsgroups, hosting sites, etc.
Price out a service that gives you access to HD (HDTV HD, not heavily compressed) content and I would be certain that a lot of people would be fine with paying a smaller monthly fee. It would also have to allow for higher throughput.
Netflix is just the start of this type of option. If they had better quality streaming, I would be more than happy to go with them. They also restrict how much throughput can be obtained. I can heavily saturate my connection with 3rd party services but not even close with Netflix. |
|
 El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to danawhitaker
I think you summed up a lot of good reasons why folks would pirate TV shows.
This certainly applies in the "global marketplace" we have now. Add restrictive DRM to the mix so you can't do what you want with your purchase and the pro-piracy arguments become almost endless.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to chgo_man99
I do not consider downloading TV shows to be piracy though. It is not the fault of the viewer that the companies will not sync up their production world wide. the Viewer should not have to be a season or two behind just because the corporate overlords said so.
I also view downloading TV shows as no different than when you say back in the VHS days let someone borrow a tape of a few shows you taped or made a copy.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
 jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·voip.ms
| reply to danawhitaker
said by danawhitaker:And I have friends who live overseas who are forced to use those methods in order to get TV shows and movies at the same speed as other parts of the world get them. By "forced" you actually mean "really really really want to" right?
I've never heard of someone being "forced" to be the first to watch a TV show. |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
1 edit | said by jester121:said by danawhitaker:And I have friends who live overseas who are forced to use those methods in order to get TV shows and movies at the same speed as other parts of the world get them. By "forced" you actually mean "really really really want to" right? I've never heard of someone being "forced" to be the first to watch a TV show. I think a more realistic evaluation of her post is:
A lot folks would pay a reasonable amount for the programming of their choice.
However, as long as content providers are more concerned with controlling viewer choice then they are with fair_product@fair_price; a meaningfully free market isn't normally available to viewers.
I'll pay ~$10.00/mo for one Channel of Netflix that gives me an ad-free selection of content.
I won't pay $10.00/mo for a basic cable package that gives me 30-40 channels; each consisting of ad-driven content beyond my choice.
I'd pay $15.00/mo for the 3 non-premium channels of my worldwide choice. I suspect her friends might too.
NV
edit:subst non-premium for broadcast. that better fits my intention
--
Any Goal that is Driven by Animosity, is Empowered through Deceit. |
|
danawhitakerSpace...The Final FrontierPremium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA | reply to jester121
Okay, yes, forced perhaps isn't the right word. In order to stay *current* with the show, they have to resort to those methods. They always have the option of *not* staying current, but it ruins their participation in social networks and conversations with friends who get the shows in a timely fashion in other parts of the world. It ruins their enjoyment of the franchise to constantly be behind the rest of the world. They pay for TV service, and would buy the DVDs if they were available, but they usually can't do *that* either because DVDs aren't released yet and importing them would be difficult because of region restrictions on players. I'm actually curious after thinking about this about who IS in charge of the decisions not to release things worldwide so everyone can view them at roughly the same time.
I spend a lot of time in several show fandoms online, and these aren't as isolated of cases as you'd think. And yes, while it's just entertainment, think about whatever your favorite hobby is, and imagine it being gimped similarly. Would you not be frustrated if you couldn't stay current in it and participate in it?
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around... |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:I think a more realistic evaluation of her post is: A lot folks would pay a reasonable amount for the programming of their choice. However, as long as content providers are more concerned with controlling viewer choice then they are with fair_product@fair_price; a meaningfully free market isn't normally available to viewers. I'll pay ~$10.00/mo for one Channel of Netflix that gives me an ad-free selection of content. I won't pay $10.00/mo for a basic cable package that gives me 30-40 channels; each consisting of ad-driven content beyond my choice. I'd pay $15.00/mo for the 3 non-premium channels of my worldwide choice. I suspect her friends might too. Look, not to be rude, but this is, in a nutshell, the entire debate! It isn't yours, so you don't get to decide what the content owners should charge. All you get to do is evaluate the offerings in the marketplace and decide whether you want to pay what they're asking, or do without.
Of course the simple alternative for many people is "bah, if they won't sell it to me for $15 (or $10, or $5, or $1 or whatever I think is 'fair') then I'll just download it."
The same justification has been used for years by people pirating software: "No way Office 20xx Pro is worth $400, I hardly use anything except Word and Outlook, but I really want Excel and Access just in case, so I'll just pirate it. Microsoft doesn't get hurt because I just wouldn't buy it for $400 anyhow."
Now MS has evolved their thinking and offered more options like Home editions and vastly reduced prices for Student editions, bully for them. But people still pirate Office and it's still wrong, and Microsoft could have chosen to stay with their old pricing model, and it wouldn't be a question of "fair".
So you can pick arbitrary numbers and appoint yourself lead negotiator with the TV industry and tell them that $15 is "fair" (to you) until you're blue in the face. Until they decide it's in their financial interest to offer packages like that, it's still fair. |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| reply to danawhitaker
said by danawhitaker:I spend a lot of time in several show fandoms online, and these aren't as isolated of cases as you'd think. And yes, while it's just entertainment, think about whatever your favorite hobby is, and imagine it being gimped similarly. Would you not be frustrated if you couldn't stay current in it and participate in it? No, at approximately age 9, I reached a level of maturity that permitted me to stop measuring my self-worth based on my ability to speak knowledgably with peers about last night's episode of the latest TV shows or next weekend's movies.
Also by around that same age, I learned that it is okay if my friends had toys that I didn't have (and vice versa) and that we didn't all have to dress the same, or look the same, or talk the same.
I play a lot of video games, so maybe that's my correlary. I suppose if I wanted to get in the beta test of the great new game, even while thousands of other people WERE in the beta, and having fun, OMG, that would be horriffic and I'd probably have to cut myself. And if I was unemployed when the game was finally released and didn't have money to buy the game, I guess I'd have to try to shoplift it from the Gamestop store. But at least I wouldn't feel "gimped". 
Everything in that last paragraph, except the first sentence is a fabrication. |
|
El Quintron... a faint odor of kerosenePremium
join:2008-04-28
Etobicoke, ON
kudos:2 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·voip.ms
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
| reply to jester121
said by jester121:So you can pick arbitrary numbers and appoint yourself lead negotiator with the TV industry and tell them that $15 is "fair" (to you) until you're blue in the face. Until they decide it's in their financial interest to offer packages like that, it's still fair. The real difference nowadays is there is a choice. They can charge a fair price, or we can get it easily for $0.
What's great about piracy is that it actually creates a free market... no pun intended.
My beefs with ACTA are not about the whole piracy issue, but rather the privacy issue and my opinion still stands that we shouldn't throw our privacy out the window to protect the entertainmnet cartels from civil infringements.
--
Everything in Moderation... including moderation. |
|
Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Bright House
·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to jester121
said by jester121:Look, not to be rude, but this is, in a nutshell, the entire debate! It isn't yours, so you don't get to decide what the content owners should charge. All you get to do is evaluate the offerings in the marketplace and decide whether you want to pay what they're asking, or do without. So, you support the free market ideal
that the owners should charge what they want to charge;
but you also support the anti-capitalist notion
of carefully controlling a user's viewing experience
by purposefully limiting their choices.
A free market would have all available content
on the market
competing for consumer dollars;
as the technology emerges that enables that to happen.
A belief
that every legal business practice
is by default pro-capitalist and ethical,
isn't a very reasoned one.
said by jester121:Of course the simple alternative for many people is "bah, if they won't sell it to me for $15 (or $10, or $5, or $1 or whatever I think is 'fair') then I'll just download it." The same justification has been used for years by people pirating software: Which is why I suggested the realistic third option. It seems to be important to you that a consumer respect business practices; but I don't see evidence of a corresponding concern - for a capitalist free market - that protects consumers.
said by jester121:So you can pick arbitrary numbers and appoint yourself lead negotiator with the TV industry and tell them that $15 is "fair" (to you) until you're blue in the face. Until they decide it's in their financial interest to offer packages like that, it's still fair. There isn't anything at all arbitrary about my numbers. The two dollar amounts omitted by you above are actual market dollar amounts. The third ($15.00) is a definite value of the suggested product.
That the content providers universally choose to avoid competition by restricting their products is an anti-capitalist measure. Their disrespect toward the consumer side of the equation is unethical.
You are advocating for respect in only one direction. Your concern for content controllers (and seemingly no one else) is
interesting.
NV
--
Any Goal that is Driven by Animosity, is Empowered through Deceit. |
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| said by Noah Vail:So, you support the free market ideal that the owners should charge what they want to charge; but you also support the anti-capitalist notion of carefully controlling a user's viewing experience by purposefully limiting their choices. A free market would have all available content on the market competing for consumer dollars; as the technology emerges that enables that to happen. A belief that every legal business practice is by default pro-capitalist and ethical, isn't a very reasoned one. It's kind of funny watching you tapdance around choosing words so carefully -- Is there a framed poster somewhere what uses the phrase "carefully controlling a user's viewing experience by purposefully limiting their choices"? I swear that comes up verbatim in every one of these threads.
It's very simple. The owner of something (or holder of the copyright, or licensee, or whatever) has the right to decide whether or not to sell, rent, share, or give away the material if they want to, or decide not to, and also to determine the price they want in exchange.
That's capitalism at its absolute foundation, and it drives some people nuts that they can't stomp their feet, or beg mommy and daddy, or convince Senator So-n-so to pass a law to get them their way. Sniveling and offering to pay $10 or $15 sounds like a teenager trying to to coax a parent to give an advance on their allowance to buy something they can't afford.
Choosing not to offer $2 digital downloads on iTunes doesn't make them insensitive or disrespectful or evil or unfair or anything else. It's called freedom. The same freedom you have to change the station when a crappy show comes on, and go do something else when there's nothing good on at all. When you run a media company you get to decide what is fair for your customers, and you'll be judged on the decisions you make.
Which is why I suggested the realistic third option. It seems to be important to you that a consumer respect business practices; but I don't see evidence of a corresponding concern - for a capitalist free market - that protects consumers. Protects them from what, the mind--bending peril of not being able to watch their favorite shows without commercials from their laptop on an airplane? I don't care if people respect companies or not. If the company thinks it's worth pandering to the masses and kissing their asses, good for them -- it's their choice. If instead the company decides to take a hard line, then the marketplace will determine whether that decision was correct or not.
There isn't anything at all arbitrary about my numbers. The two dollar amounts omitted by you above are actual market dollar amounts. The third ($15.00) is a definite value of the suggested product. Definite to whom? To you? What channels do you own again? You lost me here.
That the content providers universally choose to avoid competition by restricting their products is an anti-capitalist measure. Their disrespect toward the consumer side of the equation is unethical.
You are advocating for respect in only one direction. Your concern for content controllers (and seemingly no one else) is
interesting. So wait, which is it, I'm getting confused -- are they being greedy or short-sighted? Are they anti-competitive or disrespectful? And your attempts to deceive people about what capitalism really means are pretty feeble, but good for a laugh. Just a hint though -- try to get away from words like "disrespect" and instead just call them evil greedy heartless corporations full of suits who are out the screw everyone except the rich investors and other CEOs. Otherwise you're going to confuse a lot of people. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to chgo_man99
If they cannot keep their shows synced up around the world here in the 21st century than it is them who is flawed not the idea of downloading their shows.
For example, Hulu is a perfect setup but they are dumb and region lock hulu to the US for some silly reason.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
danawhitakerSpace...The Final FrontierPremium
join:2002-03-02
Urbandale, IA | reply to jester121
"No, at approximately age 9, I reached a level of maturity that permitted me to stop measuring my self-worth based on my ability to speak knowledgably with peers about last night's episode of the latest TV shows or next weekend's movies."
There's no need to be condescending about it. If you think I'm basically talking about water cooler gossip, you're missing my point entirely. The fans I'm talking about are the people who would travel to another country to attend conventions, buy everything as soon as it's available in their region, and are cheerleaders for the shows they watch to no end. They are some of the biggest assets that the content providers *have* because they're the people encouraging everyone they can think of to watch the show too. And then, in turn, their reward for being such an avid fan is being denied the opportunity to watch the product they love when it's first released. So can I see their perspective of choosing to download it? Absolutely. And they still spend money on it when it's available. So I wouldn't fault them for it.
The people like the guy in Poland who downloads anything and everything he can get? He wouldn't be paying in the first place. No one loses money on him. If anything, they maybe gain some, because he might talk up the stuff he watches to other people who would in turn give it a chance and spend money on it when they wouldn't have.
And I don't think beta test is an accurate or fair comparison. I think a better one would be that the game wouldn't be sold in your country at all, or not until an undetermined point in the future. If it's so unimportant, than why is it important enough at all to restrict people geographically from those things?
--
You're watching Sports Night on CSC so stick around... |
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to jester121
said by jester121:Look, not to be rude, but this is, in a nutshell, the entire debate! It isn't yours, so you don't get to decide what the content owners should charge. All you get to do is evaluate the offerings in the marketplace and decide whether you want to pay what they're asking, or do without. OR If they *CAN* get it some other way, they do so, despite how the "owners" say it's "wrong". Seriously, they need to stop trying to force people to buy what they want them to buy and dictate to them the terms and start providing options that people can accept. Piracy will never go away entirely because some people just don't (or won't) have the money to buy "entertainment" when there's other pressing needs.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Right. Like I said in the other post, heaven forbid anyone have to go without all the free movies and music they want. |
|
